Tarun Kumar vs State of Haryana

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—The contour of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the instant petition for the grant of anticipatory bail and emanating from the record is that, a Group of Companies of the accused were the owner of land approximately measuring 115 acres, situated in the villages Fajjupur, Neemaka and Faridpur, District Faridabad. The accused were stated to have executed a Deed of Assignment of the development rights, (Annexure P-2). The complainant claimed that in spite of the Assignment-Deed, the accused have sold the land measuring 13 Kanal 1 Marla, by means of registered sale-deed dated October 13, 2010 and mortgaged approximately 7.4.1 acres of land to different persons. In this manner, the accused were stated to have violated the terms & conditions of the Assignment-Deed (Annexure P-2) and committed the indicated offences. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of complaint of complainant-Yashpal Antil, Authorized Signatory of M/s DD Housing Limited(for brevity "the complainant"), the present criminal case was registered against the petitioner and his other co-accused, vide FIR No. 645 dated 12.11.2010, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, by the police of Police Station Sector 12, Faridabad Central, in the manner depicted here-in-above. Now, petitioner-Tarun Kumar son of Ashok Kumar, has preferred the instant petition for the grant of anticipatory bail in the indicated case, invoking the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C.

Notice of the petition was issued to the State.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the present petition for anticipatory bail deserves to be accepted in this context.

As is evident from the record that, the complainant claimed that the petitioner and his other co-accused have alienated some portion of their land by way of different sale and mortgage-deeds in complete violation of terms & conditions of Assignment-Deed (Annexure P-2). Meaning thereby, prima facie the dispute appears to be purely of a civil nature based on the documentary evidence.

There is yet another aspect of the matter, which can be viewed entirely from a different angle. It is not a matter of dispute that, earlier the parties have settled the matter and executed the Settlement-Deed dated 11.03.2011 (Annexure P-4). In pursuance thereof, the license granted to develop the residential plotted colony on the land measuring 102.886 acres by The Director, Town & Country Planning, Haryana, Chandigarh, (Annexure P-17), was transferred to the complainant-Company, by virtue of order dated 17.11.2011 (Annexure P-18). In that eventuality, to my mind, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not at all required in the obtaining circumstances of the case.

In the light of aforesaid reasons, taking into consideration the totality of other facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial of the main case, the instant petition for anticipatory bail is accepted. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner, the Arresting Officer would admit him to bail on his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- to his satisfaction, subject to the compliance of the conditions, as contemplated u/s 438(2) Cr.P.C. However, the petitioner is directed to join the investigation as and when required to do so by the Investigating Agency. In case, the petitioner does not cooperate or join the investigation, the prosecution would be at liberty to move a petition for cancellation of his bail, in this relevant connection.

Needless to mention that nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect on the merits of the main case, in any manner, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition for anticipatory bail only.